911- it all ties in...
Oil, drugs, Arms & Property ...even slavery...you name it

"...It is a serious mistake, according to savvy American and foreign intelligence sources, to blame the Emergency all on Osama bin Laden. As readers of our website are aware, we have long pointed out that bin Laden is reportedly in the Mid-East Construction business. His reputed partners? The family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller. She is the wife of John D. Rockefeller 4th (D., W.Va.), great grandson of the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Trust that used to bomb their own obsolete buildings to falsely blame onto their competitors. Bin Laden's so-called "secret" accounts, which the White House has said they would like to freeze, are or have been actually reportedly in the Harris Bank, Chicago, joint accounts with the family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller.

The Saudi Royal Family actually consists of some five thousand members, some of whom actually are for the U.S. and some anti-U.S. Some of them have bankrolled Iraq's war against Iran, 1980 to 1988, to destroy some oil facilities and keep the price of oil HIGH. The foreign intelligence agencies, that penetrated the plots to be carried out on U.S. soil, are aware that some of the Saudi royals are actually sympathetic to the Iraqis destroying the World Trade Center Buildings and in part, wrecking the Pentagon. [As if the American CIA did not ALREADY have their own knowledge of this.] "
CIA Had Advance Knowledge of Hijack Plot Sherman Skolnick

9-11 witness protection for the perpetrators?

"There are other reasons why the Bush administration is desperate to keep Binalshibh off the witness stand in Hamburg, in the US, or anywhere. Members of the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell, including some of the 9-11 hijackers, named their regular meeting place "Dar al Ansar, or 'House of the Followers,'" which was the "Peshawar office used by Osama Bin Laden as a safe house for fighters who were traveling to Afghanistan during the 1980?s to wage jihad against the Soviet Union."

See: To Try a Terrorist.

Members of this Hamburg group were veterans in CIA covert wars and were recruiters for CIA operations. For example, Mohammed Haidar Zammar " fought alongside Hekmatyar's troops against the communist Afghan regime" and "in 1995 he went to fight in Bosnia, where he was based in Zenica with other Arab mujaheddin." During the 1980's Afghan "jihad," Gulbuddin Hekmatyar "used the [Central Intelligence] Agency's arms, logistics and support to become the region's largest drug lord...."

"...This Al Qaeda group in Spain does have a Hamburg and also a 9-11 connection, according to this report: Was it Eta or al-qaedA?

"Ramzi Binalshibh, the September 11 paymaster, and hijackers Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al- Shehhi" and Mohammed Atta attended Al Qaeda "summits in Spain."

Also "the Spanish cell provided money and support to the Hamburg cell of al-Qaeda which planned the 9/11 attacks." Note that according to the indictment in Spain, Yarkas "raised tens of thousands of dollars for holy war and sent a host of young Muslims to terror training camps in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan."
Shut out? Spain to FBI: Thanks but no thanks

New name for 'war on terror'

By Matthew Davis BBC News, Washington - Wednesday, 27 July, 2005

The Bush administration is abandoning the phrase "war on terror" to better express the fight against al-Qaeda and other groups as an ideological struggle as much as a military mission.

While the slogan - first used by President George W Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks - may still be heard from time to time, the White House says it will increasingly be couched in other language. In recent days, senior administration figures have been speaking publicly of "a global struggle against the enemies of freedom", and of the need to use all "tools of statecraft" to defeat them.

The shift in terms comes at a time when the US public is increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq - and sceptical about its links to the fight against terrorism. One White House official told the BBC the move did not mark a change of approach, but was intended to give a broader perspective to the "evolving nature" of the struggle.

'Economic influence'

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke in the new language on Friday, praising a retiring Navy officer who had served as "our country wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization".

The next day, national security advisor Steven Hadley co-wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he set out the current thinking.

"Military action is only one piece of the war on terrorism," Mr Hadley wrote. "At the same time, however, we must bring all of the tools of statecraft, economic influence and private enterprise to bear in this war. "Freedom-loving people around the world must reach out through every means - communications, trade, education - to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends."

The country's top military officer spoke in a similar vein on Monday.

General Richard Myers told a meeting at the National Press Club: "The long-term problem is as much diplomatic, as much economic, in fact more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

"And that's where the focus has to be in the future."

Tough talking

Earlier this month, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook criticised the language employed by the US president, saying that instead of isolating terrorists, he had upset Muslims around the world.

Mr Cook - an opponent of the war in Iraq - told the BBC: "I think the problem with George Bush's approach is that he does keep talking about it as a war on terror as if there is a military solution and there isn't."

But while the president has continued to talk of "taking the fight to the enemy", his recent speeches have also emphasized freedom, democracy and the worldwide clash of ideas.

A White House official said: "We are constantly reviewing how we can best protect our citizens from terrorism and we need to adjust our approach to achieve this.

"The 'war' is more than a military response, it is a battle of ideas and a struggle against extremism, and all aspects of the US Government and its allies around the world need to be called upon in fighting it.

"In Afghanistan, the extremist Taleban regime no longer has a base of operations, a clearly identified location that requires a war - there is now a democratically-elected government there. "It's a different situation again in London where you've got, say, a second generation British Muslim influenced by the preachings of a radical cleric."

Slow evolution

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General James T Conway, a senior US military commander, told a Pentagon briefing there had been "philosophical discussions" with US allies over the use of the phrase. "We've been told, actually, that "global war on terrorism" translates pretty well into the various languages," he added. "So I think that continues to make it a part of the discussion."

A Pentagon spokesman said the title of a new manual for combatant commanders suggested a slow evolution in the recasting of the mission away from its military aspect. The National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, issued in March, directs commanders to focus on eight areas essential to terrorists. These include areas like funding and ideological support, safe havens, communications and movement.

The phrase "war on terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the efforts by Britain to end a spate of attacks in the British mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. Later, it was frequently employed by US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. But since the 9/11 attacks it has become a slogan for the protracted, US-led struggle to terrorists and the states that aid them, usually expressed as "the global war on terror". - BBC

Reports reveal Zarqawi nuclear threat

By Bill Gertz

04/20/05 "Washington Times" - Recurrent intelligence reports say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device or is preparing a radiological explosive -- or dirty bomb -- for an attack, according to U.S. officials, who also say analysts are unable to gauge the reliability of the information's sources.

The classified reports have been distributed to U.S. intelligence agencies for several consecutive months and say Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, has stored the nuclear device or dirty bomb in Afghanistan, said officials familiar with the intelligence.

One official said the intelligence is being questioned because analysts think al Qaeda would not hesitate to use a nuclear device if it had one.

However, the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has reported the nuclear threat in several classified reports distributed since December indicates concern about it.

A DIA spokesman had no comment. - informationclearinghouse

I am convinced Bill Gertz is a CIA plant. Gertz works for the Washington Times, a newspaper founded, owned, and controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, a whacked out religious mind-meld cult if ever there was one (see Behind the Times: Who Pulls The Strings at Washington's No. 2 Daily?). Since the Washington Times is already far right-wing territory, it is a near perfect platform for Gertz (billed as 'defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times, a position he has held since 1985'), as a CIA operative, to launch a disinformation campaign in regard to terrorism: viz., Abu Musab Zarqawi has a nuke and plans to use it. Of course, as usual, "analysts are unable to gauge the reliability of the information's sources" in regard to the Abu Nuke, but that sure didn't prevent the editors over at Moonie Central from cooking up a big old scary headline: Reports reveal Zarqawi nuclear threat.

"Recurrent intelligence reports say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device or is preparing a radiological explosive-or dirty bomb-for an attack, according to U.S. officials," warns Gertz. "The classified reports have been distributed to U.S. intelligence agencies for several consecutive months and say Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, has stored the nuclear device or dirty bomb in Afghanistan, said officials familiar with the intelligence."

Notice how it is now a foregone conclusion that Abu Musab Zarqawi-who was reported killed some time ago-is "al Qaeda's leader in Iraq." (Gertz tells us Abu is "formally" linked to al-Qaeda.) If the corporate media "reports" spurious "facts" long enough, they simply become gospel. "We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," a military intelligence agent told Adrian Blomfield of the UK Telegraph last year. "Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one." kurt nimmo